Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22438439›Full record

ReviewRadiology2012

Osteoporosis imaging: state of the art and advanced imaging.

Thomas M Link

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 214 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
214citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

214 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Role of SEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. SBMC surgery · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

154 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Thomas M LinkDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA. tmlink@radiology.ucsf.edu

Funding

Cortical Bone Porosity Identifies Diabetes Subjects With Fragility FracturesRC1AR058405 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI LINK, THOMAS M · 2009 to 2010
$840k
NIAMS NIH HHS RC1 AR058405
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteoporosis is becoming an increasingly important public health issue, and effective treatments to prevent fragility fractures are available. Osteoporosis imaging is of critical importance in identifying individuals at risk for fractures who would require pharmacotherapy to reduce fracture risk and also in monitoring response to treatment. Dual x-ray absorptiometry is currently the state-of-the-art technique to measure bone mineral density and to diagnose osteoporosis according to the World Health Organization guidelines. Motivated by a 2000 National Institutes of Health consensus conference, substantial research efforts have focused on assessing bone quality by using advanced imaging techniques. Among these techniques aimed at better characterizing fracture risk and treatment effects, high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography (CT) currently plays a central role, and a large number of recent studies have used this technique to study trabecular and cortical bone architecture. Other techniques to analyze bone quality include multidetector CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and quantitative ultrasonography. In addition to quantitative imaging techniques measuring bone density and quality, imaging needs to be used to diagnose prevalent osteoporotic fractures, such as spine fractures on chest radiographs and sagittal multidetector CT reconstructions. Radiologists need to be sensitized to the fact that the presence of fragility fractures will alter patient care, and these fractures need to be described in the report. This review article covers state-of-the-art imaging techniques to measure bone mineral density, describes novel techniques to study bone quality, and focuses on how standard imaging techniques should be used to diagnose prevalent osteoporotic fractures.

Indexed as

Absorptiometry, PhotonBone DensityFractures, BoneHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyOsteoporosisPhantoms, ImagingRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID22438439
PMCPMC3309802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.